|Problems with Compensation: Gleeson on Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil|
According to the most recent articulation of her view, Marilyn Adams's reply to the problem of horrendous evils states that God offers compensation to those who experience horrendous evils. This compensation includes the good of the incarnation of God and the good of identification with God in virtue of suffering horrendous evils. Andrew Gleeson has raised a series of objections to Adams's recent articulation. I argue that all of Gleeson's arguments fail or fail to pose a distinct challenge. I then present a different challenge: that her view provides insufficient compensation for horrendous evils. I conclude by suggesting a development of her view.
|A Zhuangzian Critique of John Hick's Theodicy|
Hick's soul-making theodicy defends the omnipotence, omniscience, and all-goodness of God in the face of evil. It holds that the end of the creation process is the development of human beings into children of God. In order to achieve the end, an evil-dependent soul-making process must be employed. It then concludes that, because the end is so valuable, the omnipotent and omniscient creator's not having prevented the existence of evil is morally justified and thus not in conflict with her being all-good. In particular, God's having created a world with evils and evil-dependent values, which may be called "an Irenaean world," is morally justified. In the Zhuangzi, Zhuangzi holds that the actual world is, in reality, a world without evils and evil-dependent values, but with evil-independent values, which may be called "a Zhuangzian world," while ordinary people mistakenly take the actual world to be an Irenaean world. In an insightful story in the Chapter "The Great and Venerable Teacher" of the Zhuangzi, he amounts to claiming that a Zhuangzian world is better than an Irenaean world. Without endorsing Zhuangzi's two positions, I argue against Hick's soul-making theodicy in this way: It is Hick's burden to prove either that a Zhuangzian world is metaphysically impossible, or that the actual world, as an Irenaean world, is better than any Zhuangzian world. However, there are not any resources in his soul-making theodicy that can provide any such proofs. Therefore, Hick has not justified, nor rationally established, his soul-making theodicy.
|In Defense of Physicalist Christology|
Physicalist Christology (PC) is the view that God the Son (GS), in the Incarnation, became identical with the body of Jesus. The goal of this paper is to defend PC from two recent objections. One is that if GS is a physical object, then he cannot have properties had by God (e.g., necessary existence). Then, by Leibniz's law, the incarnate GS cannot be identical with the second Person of the Trinity. The other objection is that PC implies that the incarnate GS did not exist in the interim period between his death and resurrection. PC then leads to the theologically absurd consequence that one of the three Persons of the Trinity did not exist during this period. I argue that the first objection fails because the very same argumentative strategy applies to the Incarnation on any view. As for the second objection, I endorse an animalist theory of death and argue that the incarnate GS continues to exist as a dead person from his death to resurrection. This shows that there is still continuing Trinity of GS during this period.
|The Holy Trinity and the Ontology of Relations|
I reconsider in this article the problem of the Holy Trinity from the standpoint of some recent theories of the ontology of relations. After having presented the problem and after having introduced some basic ontological concepts (i.e., substance, modes, person), I shall briefly dwell on the ontology of non-symmetrical relations and on the O-Roles theory suggested by Francesco Orilia. Afterwards, I shall develop my own solution to the problem of the Holy Trinity by exploring the status of Intratrinitarian relations and of divine Persons. Among other things, I shall defend the thesis that divine Persons are not substances, but peculiar modes of God. I shall also ground the distinction between the properties attributed to God himself and the ones attributed to specific divine Persons. Finally, I shall anticipate and face some objections against my account (e.g., the one of modalism) and argue that it is legitimate to maintain that there is no kind of persons in general—which is a consequence of my view.
|Won't Get Fooled Again: Wittgensteinian Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Empiricism|
The debate surrounding eliminative materialism, and the role of empiricism more broadly, has been one of the more prominent philosophical debates of the last half-century. But too often what is at stake in this debate has been left implicit. This essay surveys the rhetoric of two participants in this debate, Paul Churchland and Thomas Nagel, on the question of whether or not scientific explanations will do away with the need for nonscientific descriptions. Both philosophers talk about this possibility in language reminiscent of revolutionary politics. These authors do not see eliminative materialism merely as an idea to be evaluated, but a revolution to be welcomed or quashed. After surveying their rhetoric, the paper turns to the work of four philosophers—G.E.M. Anscombe, Peter Winch, Paul Holmer, and G.H. von Wright—to suggest that there is within Wittgensteinian tradition a 'nonrevolutionary' approach to the question of eliminative materialism.
|What Matters in Caring: Some Reflections on Derek Parfit's On What Matters|
This essay is prompted by the recent publication of a volume of critical essays on Derek Parfit's On What Matters, along with a third volume of On What Matters responding to those essays. Parfit and his interlocutors often end up either barely engaging with one another, or engaging on terms that are often questionable. As others have done, I question Parfit's radical bifurcation of a merely 'psychological' sense of caring, of what it is for a thing or creature to matter, and a 'purely normative reason-implying sense' of those things. But I question it in a distinctive way, by emphasising its moral as well as its philosophical implications. I argue that what Parfit gives us with his 'normative, reason-implying sense' of caring and mattering is not an account of genuine moral-normative responsiveness but a morally impoverishing rationalistic distortion of it. In the last part of the essay, I briefly undertake to put my specific criticisms on a wider canvas.
|Review of Robert D. Stolorow and George E. Atwood, The Power of Phenomenology: Psychoanalytic and Philosophical Perspectives|
|Wang Yangming's Reductionist Account of Practical Necessity: General and Particular|
In this article, I argue that we can have a plausible account of the experience of practical necessity, namely, the experience that some action is necessitated for someone, by referring to the philosophy of Wang Yangming (1472–1529), a Neo-Confucian philosopher in Ming Dynasty China. The experience of practical necessity, according to Wang, can be of two kinds: general (to be a human) and particular (to be a particular person), both having their bases on human nature and related to the fulfillment of the self. I argue that this account fares better than the non-reductionist account and other reductionist accounts, including Christine Korsgaard's, which explains the experience in terms of the constitution of the self.
|The Force of Existence. Looking for Spinoza in Heidegger|
In the perhaps most decisive reopening of philosophy in the twentieth century, Heidegger presented an existential analytic. This can be viewed as the highly complex analysis of one simple action: being-there (Dasein). In the paper at hand, a Spinozist interpretation of this action is proposed. This implies a shift in the Aristotelian conceptuality, which, to a large extent, informs Heidegger's analysis. The action of being-there is not a movement from potentiality (δύναμις) to actuality (ἐνέργεια). It is a force of existence (vis existendi). However, this force is located right at the threshold between potentiality and actuality. Accordingly, it is not a matter of dismissing Aristotle's concepts, but—with Heidegger—to observe carefully their deconstruction and pursue it to the point where these concepts become indistinct and where—beyond Heidegger—a Spinozian force of existence emerges.
|Panentheism and the Conception of the Ultimate in John B. Cobb's Process Philosophy|
The concept of ultimate reality has an important role in the metaphysics of religious pluralism. John B. Cobb—a process philosopher in the Whiteheadian tradition—has suggested not only two ultimates, like other process philosophers, but three ultimates: God, creativity, and the cosmos. Based on this, I argue, firstly, that Cobb's tripartite conception of the ultimate offers greater conceptual resources for inter-religious dialog than, for example, John Hick's conception of ultimate reality or 'the Real'. In support of this first claim, I will apply Cobb's conception of the ultimate to Zen-Buddhism, thus exemplifying the resources of this conception. Secondly, given the conclusion that Cobb's conception of the ultimate does indeed offer greater conceptual resources, I further explicate how panentheism, understood as the thesis of a transcendent, immanent divine being who is bilaterally related to the world, can be read in terms of Cobb's conception of the ultimate. I thus argue that panentheism in general inherits and retains many of the conceptual resources of Cobb's understanding of the ultimate, and can be seen as a preferable position in relation to religious pluralism. Finally, I conclude from the example of Zen-Buddhism that, although Cobb's conception offers greater resources for engaging in a dialog from a metaphysical point of view, work has to be done to adequately address questions on the level of soteriology.
Κυριακή, 30 Ιουνίου 2019
Αναρτήθηκε από Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis,Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece,00302841026182,00306932607174,email@example.com, στις 1:39 π.μ.
Ετικέτες 00302841026182, 00306932607174, firstname.lastname@example.org, Anapafseos 5 Agios Nikolaos 72100 Crete Greece, Medicine by Alexandros G. Sfakianakis